Replies

You're just reiterating our old policy. Yes it was a very moral appraoch, Very Carteresque, yet it didn't protect us from attack. Why? Because the terrorists knew our policy of no first strike. Once an enemy realizes that we don't have the will to use our weapons, they lose all deterent value. I personally dont think it was wrong to use the A-bomb in Japan. It was swift and just, It was moral. It saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides and liberated millions in the region. The Japanese would have fought till the last man. Our overwhelming use of force allowed them to "save face" and surrender to a extremely worthy and powerful opponent.

" I personally dont think it was wrong to use the A-bomb in Japan."

I personally and staunchly agree with you.

The use of nuclear force in WWII accelerated the end of that horror by at least six months, saved countless lives (on both sides) and brought peace to a world ravaged by the worst onslaught to the survival of mankinid since the dawn of history.

The problem we face now is that these deadly-powerful devices have now come into the hands of those who no longer consider their role and use of them to "protect" - but to "destroy."

And that is the difference.

You're just reiterating our old policy. Yes it was a very moral appraoch, Very Carteresque,

This makes no sense at all. Carter had nothing to do with formulating a "no first strike" policy,and in fact,NO SUCH FORMAL POLICY EXISTED. Yes,the US refused to commit herself to a "no first use" policy all during the Cold War.

yet it didn't protect us from attack. Why? Because the terrorists knew our policy of no first strike.

We didn't have any such policy. It was the Soviet Union and others who signed a formal declaration of "no first strikes",and the US did NOT sign this or agree to it.

As for the terrorists,even if we had of had a "no first strike" policy it wouldn't have affected them because they don't represent a country that can be nuked. They represent political and religious ideas,not a country. You can't nuke what isn't there.

I personally dont think it was wrong to use the A-bomb in Japan.

Me,either. So what? What does that have to do with what will be happening in Japan? We were not only at war with Japan,but they attacked us first,AND they had a base of operations (home country)that we could nuke. Iraq did NOT attack us,that was Saudi Arabia behind that. We are not going to go to war against Saudi Arabia regardless of what they do because too many elite political and corporate families are in business with them.

The Japanese philosophy of bushido is what made the use of fission weapons necessary against the Imperial Empire in 1945. Bushido was an ingrained, implict part of the vast majority of the Japanese military that explains, for example, their decimation at Iwo Jima and the kamikazi phenomenon. Contrary to what some may believe, there is no comparable spirit among the muslims - despite the "kamikazi" nature of 9/11/01. Some may fret over the "rage" that is feared to erupt in the "Arab street" as a reason not to liberate Iraq and clean up the rest of the Muslim mid-east, mistakenly comparing that to a similar doctrine. I completely disagree - the muslim fanatics are basically cowards who are comfortable only when attacking unarmed civilians - preferably women and children. The bushido-driven Japanese for the most part (Nanking notwithstanding, of course) had no fear of human wave attacks against American automatic and heavy weaponry. I submit that the appearance of a US mushroom cloud over Baghdad - while regrettable because it would signify a CBW attack on the US - would go a long way to calming down the rest of the Middle East and other muslim "countries". Just my TCW.